Genocide and Gendercide

Perhaps a high point in the history of sex discrimination: a UN resolution of 31 October, 2000, declares that “women and children account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict” (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/720/18/PDF/N0072018.pdf?OpenElement).
Accordingly, that august body calls for all governments to funnel more of their money ostensibly for preserving peace and security to women’s issues, and, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, “to adopt a gender perspective.” (Would we applaud “adopting a race perspective”?) Among other concerns, the UN General Assembly is apparently able to somehow see “special needs” of women and girls in mine clearance and mine awareness programs.

The initial premise is already absurdly wrong. Women and children do not account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict. Common sense should make that immediately obvious. Men and boys have always been the bulk of those killed and wounded in war. The implication of the UN resolution seems to be simply that harm to men and boys does not count.

It is not just that it is men, and only men, who are sent off to be shot at in wars; but that, when genocide against civilians is on offer, the prime target is always military-aged men. The killing of women and children, even in such situations, is by comparison quite rare.

Thanks to The Conservative Voice for pointing out this anomaly.